A comparison of two statistical downscaling methods for daily maximum and minimum surface air temperature, total daily precipitation and total monthly precipitation at Indianapolis, IN, USA, is presented. The analysis is conducted for two seasons, the growing season and the non‐growing season, defined based on variability of surface air temperature. The predictors used in the downscaling are indices of the synoptic scale circulation derived from rotated principal components analysis (PCA) and cluster analysis of variables extracted from an 18‐year record from seven rawinsonde stations in the Midwest region of the United States. PCA yielded seven significant components for the growing season and five significant components for the non‐growing season. These PCs explained 86% and 83% of the original rawinsonde data for the growing and non‐growing seasons, respectively. Cluster analysis of the PC scores using the average linkage method resulted in eight growing season synoptic types and twelve non‐growing synoptic types. The downscaling of temperature and precipitation is conducted using PC scores and cluster frequencies in regression models and artificial neural networks (ANNs).Regression models and ANNs yielded similar results, but the data for each regression model violated at least one of the assumptions of regression analysis. As expected, the accuracy of the downscaling models for temperature was superior to that for precipitation. The accuracy of all temperature models was improved by adding an autoregressive term, which also changed the relative importance of the dominant anomaly patterns as manifest in the PC scores. Application of the transfer functions to model daily maximum and minimum temperature data from an independent time series resulted in correlation coefficients of 0.34–0.89. In accord with previous studies, the precipitation models exhibited lesser predictive capabilities. The correlation coefficient for predicted versus observed daily precipitation totals was less than 0.5 for both seasons, while that for monthly total precipitation was below 0.65. The downscaling techniques are discussed in terms of model performance, comparison of techniques and possible model improvements. Copyright © 2001 Royal Meteorological Society

Applications of the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model typically involve delineation of a watershed into subwatersheds/subbasins that are then further subdivided into hydrologic response units (HRUs) which are homogeneous areas of aggregated soil, landuse, and slope and are the smallest modeling units used within the model. In a given standard SWAT application, multiple potential HRUs (farm fields) in a subbasin are usually aggregated into a single HRU feature. In other words, the standard version of the model combines multiple potential HRUs (farm fields) with the same landuse/landcover, soil, and slope, but located at different places of a subbasin (spatially non-unique), and considers them as one HRU. In this study, ArcGIS pre-processing procedures were developed to spatially define a one-to-one match between farm fields and HRUs (spatially unique HRUs) within a subbasin prior to SWAT simulations to facilitate input processing, input/output mapping, and further analysis at the individual farm field level. Model input data such as landuse/landcover (LULC), soil, crop rotation, and other management data were processed through these HRUs. The SWAT model was then calibrated/validated for Raccoon River watershed in Iowa for 2002–2010 and Big Creek River watershed in Illinois for 2000–2003. SWAT was able to replicate annual, monthly, and daily streamflow, as well as sediment, nitrate and mineral phosphorous within recommended accuracy in most cases. The one-to-one match between farm fields and HRUs created and used in this study is a first step in performing LULC change, climate change impact, and other analyses in a more spatially explicit manner.